Evaluation of LI-RADS 3 category by magnetic resonance in US-detected nodules ≤ 2 cm in cirrhotic patients

Clinical impact of CEUS on non-characterizable observations and observations with intermediate probability of malignancy on CT/MRI in patients at risk for HCC

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a unique cancer allowing tumor diagnosis with identification of definitive patterns of enhancement on contrast-enhanced imaging, avoiding invasive biopsy. However, it is still unclear to what extent Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) is a clinically useful additional step when Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are inconclusive.

METHODS

A prospective international multicenter validation study for CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was conducted between January 2018 and August 2021. 646 patients at risk for HCC with focal liver lesions were enrolled. CEUS was performed using an intravenous ultrasound contrast agent within 4 weeks of CT/MRI. Liver nodules were categorized based on LI-RADS (LR) criteria. Histology or one-year follow-up CT/MRI imaging results were used as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was evaluated for inconclusive CT/MRI scan in two scenarios for which the AASLD recommends repeat imaging or imaging follow-up: observations deemed non-characterizable (LR-NC) or with indeterminate probability of malignancy (LR-3).

RESULTS

75 observations on CT or MRI were categorized as LR-3 (n = 54) or LR-NC (n = 21) CEUS recategorization of such observations into a different LR category (namely, into one among LR-1, LR-2, LR-5, LR-M, or LR-TIV) resulted in management recommendation changes in 33.3% (25/75) and in all but one (96.0%, 24/25) observation, the new management recommendations were correct.

CONCLUSION

CEUS LI-RADS resulted in management recommendations change in substantial number of liver observations with initial indeterminate CT/MRI characterization, identifying both non-malignant lesions and HCC, potentially accelerating the diagnostic process and alleviating the need for biopsy or follow-up imaging.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number, NCT03318380.

Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 has high specificity and modest sensitivity for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 vs combined LR-4 and LR-5 (LR-4/5) for HCC diagnosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 03, 2023 were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 and combined LR-4/5 for HCC diagnosis, using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies (15,108 observations, 9928 (65.7%) HCCs) were included. Compared to LR-5, combined LR-4/5 showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (83.0% (95% CI [80.3-85.8%]) vs 65.7% (95% CI [62.4-69.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled specificity (75.0% (95% CI [70.5-79.6%]) vs 91.7% (95% CI [90.2-93.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled positive likelihood ratio (3.60 (95% CI [3.06-4.23]) vs 6.18 (95% CI [5.35-7.14]); p < 0.001), and lower pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.22 (95% CI [0.19-0.25]) vs 0.38 (95% CI [0.35-0.41]) vs; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that combining LR-4 and LR-5 would increase sensitivity but decrease specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. These findings may inform management guidelines and individualized management.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria when LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were combined; these findings can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

KEY POINTS

There is no single worldwide reporting system for liver imaging, partly due to regional needs. Combining LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 increased sensitivity and decreased specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

From evidence to clinical practice: Bridging the gap of new liver cancer therapies in Latin America

The most common primary liver tumors are hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. They constitute the sixth most common neoplasia and the third cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Although both tumors may share etiologic factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, and treatments, they differ substantially in determining distinctive clinical management. In recent years, significant advances have been made in the management of these neoplasms, particularly in advanced stages. In this review, we focus on the most relevant diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment aspects of both, hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma, underlying their applicability in Latin America.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed an updated meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) 5 category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018), and to evaluate differences by imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 using v2018 for diagnosing HCC. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies qualified for the meta-analysis, comprising 9031 patients, 10,547 observations, and 7216 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC were 66% (95% CI, 61-70%) and 91% (95% CI, 89-93%), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRI with extracellular agent (ECA-MRI) showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (77% [95% CI, 70-82%]) than CT (66% [95% CI, 58-73%]; p = 0.023) or MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI) (65% [95% CI, 60-70%]; p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between ECA-MRI and MRI with gadobenate (gadobenate-MRI) (73% [95% CI, 61-82%]; p = 0.495). Pooled specificities were 88% (95% CI, 80-93%) for CT, 92% (95% CI, 86-95%) for ECA-MRI, 93% (95% CI, 91-95%) for Gx-MRI, and 91% (95% CI, 84-95%) for gadobenate-MRI without significant differences (p = 0.084-0.803).

CONCLUSIONS

LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material, while ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT or Gx-MRI.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Refinement of the criteria for improving sensitivity while maintaining high specificity of LR-5 for HCC diagnosis may be an essential future direction.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC using LI-RADSv2018 were 66% and 91%, respectively. • ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT (77% vs 66%, p = 0.023) or Gx-MRI (77% vs 65%, p = 0.001). • LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity (88-93%) for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material type.

LI-RADS Made Easy

PURPOSE

 The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS v2018) standardizes the interpretation and reporting of MDCT and MRI examinations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 For focal liver lesions (called "observations") it assigns categories (LR-1 to 5, LR-M, LR-TIV, LR-TR), which reflect the probability of benignity or malignancy (HCC or other non-HCC malignancies) of the respective observation. The categories assigned are based on major and ancillary image features, which have been developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR), revised several times (now v2018), and validated in many studies. The value of ancillary features to modify LI-RADS categories assigned to observations based on major features is shown.

RESULTS

 This review summarizes the relevant CT and MRI features and presents a step-by-step approach for readers not familiar with LI-RADS on how to use the system. Relevant imaging features and the value of different modalities (contrast-enhanced CT, MRI with extracellular gadolinium chelates or liver-specific contrast agents) is explained.

CONCLUSION

 The widespread adoption of LI-RADS for CT/MRI reporting in high-risk patients would help to reduce inter-reader variability. It could improve communication between radiologists, oncologists, hepatologists, pathologists, and liver surgeons, and lead to better patient management.

KEY POINTS

  · LI-RADS has been developed and revised to address the need for improved diagnosis and standardized categorization of findings in chronic liver disease.. · CT/MRI LI-RADS consists of major criteria and ancillary features to classify observations.. · LI-RADS terminology helps to clarify the communication of liver observations between radiologists and referring physicians..

CITATION FORMAT

· Schima W, Kopf H, Eisenhuber E. LI-RADS made Easy. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1990-5924.

Percentages of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in LI-RADS Categories with CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) CT and MRI algorithm applies equally to CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI), and MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI). Purpose To estimate pooled percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and overall malignancy for each LI-RADS category with CT and MRI. Materials and Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for research articles (January 2014-April 2021) reporting the percentages of observations in each LI-RADS category with use of versions 2014, 2017, or 2018. Study design, population characteristics, imaging modality, reference standard, and numbers of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in each category were recorded. A random-effects model evaluated the pooled percentage of HCC and overall malignancy for each category. Results There were 49 studies with 9620 patients and a total 11 562 observations, comprising 7921 HCCs, 1132 non-HCC malignancies, and 2509 benign entities. No HCC or non-HCC malignancies were reported with any modality in the LR-1 category. The pooled percentages of HCC for CT, ECA-MRI, and Gx-MRI, respectively, were 10%, 6%, and 1% for LR-2 (P = .16); 48%, 31%, and 38% for LR-3 (P = .42); 76%, 64%, and 77% for LR-4 (P = .62); 96%, 95%, and 96% for LR-5 (P = .76); 88%, 76%, and 78% for LR-5V or LR-TIV (tumor in vein) (P = .42); and 20%, 30%, and 35% for LR-M (P = .32). Most LR-M (93%-100%) and LR-5V or LR-TIV (99%-100%) observations were malignant, regardless of modality. Conclusion There was no difference in percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma and overall malignancy between CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents, and MRI with gadoxetate for any Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article See also the editorial by Ronot in this issue.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard. MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence). MRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a meta-analysis to determine the probability of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC malignancies in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) observations and the frequency of defined LR-M imaging features on MRI using LI-RADS v2018.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify studies published from 1 January 2018 to 16 March 2021 reporting the probability of category LR-M in HCC and non-HCC malignancies on MRI. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were evaluated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors for study heterogeneity. The frequencies of defined LR-M imaging features were also calculated. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of the LR-M category (3,812 observations in 3,615 patients), with nine studies reporting the frequencies of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-38%) and 67% (95%CI, 57-77%), respectively. The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors for study heterogeneity. Of the 10 LR-M imaging features, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies (68%; 95%CI, 61-75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-M category was commonly used to characterize non-HCC malignancies, but also included 29% of HCC. The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

KEY POINTS

• In the LR-M category using LI-RADS v2018 for MRI, the pooled percentage of malignancies in general was 96%, with 29% HCC and 67% non-HCC malignancies, while the remaining 4% was benign entity. • The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors contributing to substantial heterogeneity among included studies. • The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category 5 (LR5) for diagnosing HCC and LI-RADS category M (LRM) for characterizing other non-HCC malignancies (OM) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Multiple databases were searched for articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS and/or CT/MRI LI-RADS. A random-effects model was adopted to synthesize the summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of LR5 for diagnosing HCC and LRM for characterizing OM using CEUS and CT/MRI. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS LR5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 69% and 93%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 67% and the specificity, 93% of CT/MRI LR5 for HCC diagnosis. There was no significant difference between the overall diagnostic accuracy for HCC diagnosis of CEUS LR5 and that of CT/MRI LR5 in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (p = 0.55). The sensitivity was 84% with a specificity of 90% in the CEUS LRM for characterizing OM, while the sensitivity and specificity of CT/MRI LRM for characterizing OM was 63% and 95%. The DOR of CEUS LRM for characterizing OM was higher than that of CT/MRI LRM without significant difference (50.59 vs. 36.06, p = 0.34). This meta-analysis indicated that CEUS LI-RADS is qualified to characterize HCC and OM and may provide complementary information on liver nodules to CT/MRI LI-RADS.